ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, in I.A.No.1801 of 2016 in O.S.No.130 of 2009, dated 23.09.2016, wherein and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (in short C.P.C) seeking amendment of plaint claiming more amount of compensation as a ancillary relief to their main relief of declaration of their title and recovery of possession.

2. The case of the petitioners before the trial Court in brief is that they filed suit against the respondents for declaration of their title in respect of plaint “A” to “D” plaint schedule properties with consequential relief of recovery of possession and in alternative claimed compensation which estimated to an amount of Rs.1,14,11,010/- together with future interest. It is the contention of the petitioners that “A” to “D” plaint schedule properties are their exclusive properties which respondent/defendant have highhandedly occupied without initiating any Land Acquisition proceedings due to that they filed suit for declaration of their title, recovery of possession and they also sought for alternative relief of claiming compensation. The contention of the petitioners is that suit has been filed in the year, 2009, but old Land Acquisition Act, 1/1894 has been repealed and now new Act i.e., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, came into force and as per that Act they intended to sought alternative relief praying enhancement of compensation. The amendment sought by the petitioners is extracted herein under:-

“I. To add the following at the after paragraph 21:-

“21(A):- As submitted herein above possession of the plaint schedule lands were taken by defendant, through Land Acquisition Officer, in violation of and circumventing provisions of law of Land Acquisition as it was standing in the year, 2009 i.e., per Act I of 1894. Therefore, ownership in schedule lands never stood transferred in favour of defendant till date. Therefore, defendant is liable to pay fair and just compensation to plaintiffs. In the context of payment of compensation to plaintiffs it is the provisions of law as are enumerated in “The Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)” that shall be applied for evaluating compensation payable to plaintiffs. At a moderate estimate in terms of Act 30/2013 the compensation payable to plaintiffs would be not less than Rs.7,00,83,577/-@ Rs.4,500/- per square yard of plaintiffs site, as the market value of the schedule property was at least Rs.750/- and the value of assets attached to the land are to be taken at least @ Rs.16,17,517/-.

II. To amend paragraph 25 as follows i.e., The valuation of the alternative relief as follows:

(a) to substitute the figure Rs.4,500/- for the figure Rs.750/- appearing in Clauses (a); (b); (c) and (d).

III. Substitute the figure “Rs.1,39,14,000/-“ for “Rs.23,19,000/-“ appearing in Clause (a);

Substitute the figure “Rs.65,61,000/-“ for “Rs.10,93,500/-“ appearing in Clause (b);

Substitute the figure “Rs.3,44,54,610/-“ for “Rs.57,42,435/-“ appearing in Clause (c);

Substitute the figure “Rs.1,35,36,450/-“ for “Rs.22,56,075/-“ appearing in Clause (d);

Substitute the figure “………” for “………”

Being the Court fee payable thereon

IV. To amend paragraph 26(d) as follows:

“to substitute the figure “Rs.7,00,83,577/-“ for the figure

“Rs.1,14,11,010/-“; and as per provisions of “Fair Compensation Act”.

V. To suffix the following to para 26(d):

“and grant all other reliefs as are available under provisions of Fair Compensation Act”.

3. For which the respondent/defendant filed counter denying averments in the affidavit of the 1st petitioner before the trial Court. It is the contention of